Stanford's 100% Renewables A Roadmap To Nowhere

Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson has become the prophet of a religion that claims the world can be fueled by 100% renewable energy. And according to Joshua Rhodes, you cannot question him without being excommunicated.

And by excommunicated, I mean sued in court.

In a bizarre and completely unscientific move, Jacobson filed a $10 million libel suit in Washington, D.C. Superior Court against another scientist, Dr. Christopher Clack, who dared to criticize him.

Along with 20 other prominent scientists, Clack was the lead author of a paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that pointed out the scientific flaws in Jacobson’s thesis. Flaws that Jacobson refused to address during the normal scientific peer-review process.

Jacobson also filed against the Academy as publisher, to force them to retract the critique.

Yes, Jacobson has become the Trump of the scientific world, casting off all norms and rules of scientific research, discourse and publishing, and legally attacking other scientists who disagree with him scientifically.

This form of harassment rarely occurs in science. We get into heated arguments, orally and in writing, but lawsuits over scientific papers? It’s the opposite of science.

The underlying controversy that began this suit is covered in an easy-to-read and comprehensive new free online book, Roadmap to Nowhere, by Mike Conley and Tim Maloney that also challenges everything you thought you knew about renewable and nuclear energy.

It’s not that most of us don’t want renewables, it’s that renewables alone cannot do it fast enough to affect global warming.

Legally, a libel suit requires that the published statements be demonstrably false. But if so many leading scientists and scientific organizations agree with the critique, libel probably doesn’t apply.

Jacobson’s paper was full of obvious scientific errors but Jacobson refused to correct them in the normal peer-review process that scientists use to resolve scientific disputes. So it was inevitable that scientists in the scientific community would come out with a response. That it was led by Clack was just fortuitous. Many of his co-authors even come from Stanford.

Since Jacobson’s paper was awful and Clack’s critique so spot-on, most of us laughed that he would sue another scientist. But then we realized that Jacobson is only suing the one scientist of the authors that really can’t fight back.

Danny Cullenward pointed this out in the Stanford Daily. Rather than bring claims against all 21 of the authors, Jacobson only sued Dr. Clack.

Dr. Clack is a former NOAA researcher and founder of Vibrant Clean Energy, but unlike his co-authors, Dr. Clack does not work for an institution with a legal team that defends their employees in court. The National Academy as publisher is unlikely to defend him either, although they should in order to stop a dangerous precedent that will have a chilling effect on science and on their own publications.

Instead, Cullenward notes, Dr. Clack has to ‘hire his own attorney, a major expense that can financially devastate anyone without a trust fund [or without a rich University like Stanford to back them] – even if the case is quickly dismissed.’

Ironically, Clack is a strong proponent of renewables and alternative energy systems and has more bonafides in renewables and climate change than Jacobson.

Unfortunately, Jacobson’s paper has become the bible of renewable energy and is the most referenced paper on the subject used by policymakers and activist groups pushing a renewable-only agenda.

Jacobson has even formed a non-science advocacy group with celebrity board members like Mark Ruffalo, Leonardo DiCaprio and Van Jones, supported by weighty politicians like Bernie Sanders, that have embraced Jacobson’s ideological mix and push it blindly.

Which would be OK if it were correct. But it’s not.

Given the anti-science sentiment flooding America, it’s frightening when a scientist enters the political arena to push an agenda regardless of whether it's backed-up by science or not.

But it’s even scarier when a scientist enters the court arena to destroy another scientist who happens to disagree with him.

Dr. James Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com